Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MOROZOV v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications

  Art. 1, Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 71295/17

  CHUDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17

  (a) Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their transportation (applications nos. 6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), forced shaving (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.

  78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?.

  2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.

  71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, and 38336/19, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint about conditions of detention under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 93-119, and Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 36-45)?.

  71295/17.

  78210/17.

  21401/18.

• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 21205/12

  BOBRYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17

  (a) Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their transportation (applications nos. 6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), forced shaving (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.

  78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?.

  2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.

  71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, and 38336/19, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint about conditions of detention under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 93-119, and Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 36-45)?.

  2634/17 and 15294/18, were the applicants subjected to constant video surveillance during their detention in prisons? If so, did that measure constitute an interference with their private life? If so, was it justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019)? In particular:.

  79064/17.

  15294/18.

• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12

  RESIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17

  (a) Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their transportation (applications nos. 6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), forced shaving (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.

  78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?.

  2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.

  71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, and 38336/19, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint about conditions of detention under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 93-119, and Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 36-45)?.

  15031/18.

• EGMR, 25.08.2022 - 34068/19

  SKIBENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17

  (a) Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their transportation (applications nos. 6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), forced shaving (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.

  What were the legal grounds for attaching the applicants to a wire rope together with several other prisoners during their transfer (applications nos. 34068/19 and 38336/19)?.

  78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?.

  34068/19.

• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 55659/14

  RUDYKH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17

  2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.

  29086/18.

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17

  The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.

  2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17

  The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.

  15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts))? What were the reasons and legal grounds for applying the above measures to the applicants? The Government are invited to indicate periods when the applicants were subjected to the above measures and to provide supporting documents relating to application of these measures.

• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 18255/10

  TOMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17

  The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.

  18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019)?.

• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 27057/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17

  The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.

  2634/17 and 15294/18, were the applicants subjected to constant video surveillance during their detention in prisons? If so, did that measure constitute an interference with their private life? If so, was it justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019)? In particular:.

• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17

  The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.

  2634/17 and 15943/19, were the applicants subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in a metal cage in the courtrooms (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev, nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos.

• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 11.07.2014 - 13/12
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 10/10

  BRUNNER v. TURKEY
• KAG Mainz, 30.10.2008 - M 26/08

  Eingruppierung Kirchenmusiker
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 18/03

  VANZHULA v. RUSSIA
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 04.04.2003 - 19/02
• RG, 30.05.1908 - I 30/08

  Förmlichkeiten des Protestes, durch den die Präsentation eines eigenen …
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09

  GORBULYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 59655/14

  VORONTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 21205/12

  BOBRYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  2634/17, 79064/17 and 15294/18, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table).

  21205/12, 2634/17, 66813/17, 79064/17 and 15294/18, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

  21205/12, 2634/17, 66813/17, 79064/17 and 15294/18 inadmissible;.

  2634/17.

  79064/17.

  15294/18.

• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 24308/17

  LIU v. CYPRUS

  By a letter dated 29 June 2017 the applicant's lawyer informed the Court that on 28 June 2017 the applicant, who had been granted legal aid by the Nicosia District Court, lodged a civil action seeking damages for a violation of her right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 30(2) of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention (no. 2634/17).

  The applicant's lawyer maintained this position in his letter of 29 June 2017 in explaining why civil action no. 2634/17 was not brought under Law no. 2(I)/2010 (see paragraph 7 above).

  In so far as civil action no. 2634/17 is concerned (see paragraph 7 above), the Court notes that the proceedings are still pending.